On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:38:26 +0000,
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

|In article 1075236547.924306@sj-nntpcache-3,
|BRuce wrote:
|understood, works about the same way here in NC. We did have a big case
|a few years ago where a guy found a group of teens stealing stuff from
|his garage and shot one of them in the back. Case went to court and he
|was found guilty because they did not pose a threat to him but judge
|gave him a suspended sentence due to circumstances. I wouldn't want the
|aggravation of a court appearance so i would probably wait for them to
|com back for "seconds" and shoot them on the way in. :-)
|
|
|*MOST* states have a "fleeing felon" statute, which makes any party who
|commits a felony 'fair game' AS THEY ARE LEAVING THE SCENE.

Don't try that in Arizona. In fact defense of *property* using deadly
force is seldom justified. In the case of arson maybe, otherwise I
don't think so.

See: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/Arizona...s.asp?Title=13

Also, the law is not what the legislature says it is, it is what the
*judge* says it is. For example ARS 13-413 says that you can't be
sued for acting lawfully while using force against another. Yet
lawsuits are routinely brought by perps and their families and the
judges gleefully permit them.

Another example: ARS 13-3102 (F) specifically says that a weapon can
be carried concealed in a means of transportation in a holster,
scabbard or case designed to carry the weapon. Yet people are
routinely charged and convicted for doing just that.

My concealed carry instructor (retired sheriff's weapons training
officer) told us that even though I have a permit, if my weapon is in
the glove compartment and I have a passenger who doesn't have a
permit, they "have immediate access" and can be charged. So my usual
passenger SWMBO has her permit too.